Agenda item

Oultine application for the erection of 1 No. rural workers dwelling (with all matters except access reserved).

                The Planning Officer, David Richards gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had previously visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline application for the erection of 1no. rural workers dwelling (with all matters except access reserved) and was recommended for refusal, with reasons as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted that in respect of representation, Councillor D Hall supported the application, with Councillor B Kellett having responded in support of the Officers’ position.  He noted there was no objection from the Highways Section although stipulations were made, and advice provided from the Spatial Policy Team.  He noted no objections from Landscape, Tree Officer and Ecology, subject to conditions, screening, noting green belt policy would apply and biodiversity net gain (BNG) would not apply as it was a self-build development.  He explained that the Coal Authority had objected to the application, noting the application was in a Development High Risk Area and that the applicant would need to submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment accordingly.  The Planning Officer noted that there were no objections from members of the public.

The Planning Officer noted that the report offered a full assessment from Officers, however, in summary the application was recommended for refusal as the applicant had failed to demonstrate the need for a worker on-site, as there was already another worker living on-site, and therefore was contrary to Policy 12(a).  He added that while the retail element was substantial, it was outside of any reason that could justify the application.  He noted in respect of security, recent incidents had been dealt with by current workers on-site.  He added that therefore the application had failed to comply with Policy 12(e) of the County Durham Plan (CDP).  The Planning Officer noted that the application was inappropriate development in the green belt and would cause visual and spatial harm to the openness of the green belt, and as other considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm caused to the green belt, the was not the very special circumstances to justify the development, which conflicted with the aims of Part 13 of the NPPF and CDP Policy 20.  He concluded by noting that as no Coal Mining Risk Assessment had been submitted, the application represented unacceptable risk from pollution or land instability, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 180 and CDP Policy 32.    

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor D Hall, Local Member speaking in support of the application, to address the Committee.

Councillor D Hall noted that the applicants, Mr and Mrs Haswell were in their 80s and were quite frail and therefore had not been able to attend Committee due to the stress of the situation.  He reiterated he was one of the Local Members for Sherburn Village and therefore the application was in his electoral division.  He explained that Homer Hill Farm was a thriving business, with butchery and café, and a local supplier to such companies as Marks and Spencer.  He noted that farmers lived on farms, and farms were by their nature in the countryside and regularly within the green belt.  He noted the application was not very unusual and he had been disappointed that it had been felt it was required to be considered by Committee, rather than approved under delegated authority.  He added that if one looked at the details, it was for a rural dwelling for a rural worker.  He noted the family had been a farming family for over 100 years, surviving economic turbulence and the impact of inflation and cost of living pressures.  He noted that the applicants’ daughter’s illness had meant she had to step back from the running of the café and farm shop.  Councillor D Hall noted he, as a civil servant, would likely retire around the age of 65 - 67, however, farmers often worked much later in life, reiterating Mr Haswell was in his 80s.  He noted the hard work of the applicants during COVID, keeping local people supplied with quality products, and emphasised the business employed over 30 people and was a very successful local business. 

Councillor D Hall noted how difficult it was to run a farm, his family having previously ran a farm in Ireland prior to moving to England. 

He explained that the application was for a family of farmers, and succession planning was very important for their business, and he felt that surely, they were helping the green belt, with planning policy supporting this type of use.  He noted the importance of those children that stay to support succession within farming businesses, reiterating that Mr and Mrs Haswell had worked until their 80s and therefore it was unfair to punish them by not allowing for such succession upon their retirement.

Councillor D Hall noted there was a small farming community that was supported via our planning policies and emphasised that policy should not get in the way of farmers or farming, with there being scope within policy for those required to live on-site in relation to 24 hours, seven days a week activity.  He noted that any suggestion that farmers should live in the village and not on the farm did not make sense and urged Members of the Committee to support the application. 

The Chair thanked Councillor D Hall and asked H Wafer, Agent for the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

H Wafer thanked the Chair and noted the application sought planning permission to enable the development of a rural workers dwelling in support of the established agricultural business at Homer Hill Farm.  She noted some of the Members may be familiar with Homer Hill Farm, adding it was a successful family run business which had been operational for over 100 years and currently employed over 30 local people.  She added the business was originally established as a traditional cattle farm with over 110 acres of land in County Durham.  H Wafer explained that, due to the volatile agricultural market, the business had diversified over the years and now included a farm shop, café and butchery.   She noted, however, the business did still maintain traditional agricultural operations, with a current stock of cows, sheep and so on.  She explained the meat was used both in the farm shop and also supplied to other local businesses, and in addition had recently been supplied to Marks and Spencer, an increase in the farm’s business.

H Wafer explained that Glan and Jean Haswell had played a pivotal role in establishing and running the business on site over the past 40 years, and they wished to see that continue.  She noted that whilst they were still involved in the business, Glan and Jean were looking towards retirement, but could only do so if a member of staff could reside on-site, to ensure security of the business and welfare of the livestock.  H Wafer noted that the Committee Report produced by the Planning Officer advised that they do not consider there to be a need for a worker to live on-site, advising that the suggested worker was more involved in the butchery and retail side of the business, and that security of the farm could be managed with appropriate technology such as CCTV. 

She noted the Report also stated that it was reasonable for the Applicants’ grandchildren to live with the Applicants’, should they wish to continue operating the business effectively.  H Wafer noted whilst the business was currently operating effectively and that was only possible with the Applicants still being actively involved and their grandchildren living with them.  She noted, however, that was not practical nor was it sustainable.  She explained that with regards to the use of CCTV for security purposes, many of the Committee would be aware that technology often could fail, or glitches could occur.  She added that it was not comparable to living on-site, particularly when dealing with emergencies that could be detrimental.  She noted that, unfortunately, such occurrences were not uncommon for rural businesses and must be dealt with quickly.  H Wafer explained that daily activities on the farm included animal husbandry; welfare checks; calving and lambing; all of which typically occurred outside the of normal working hours and required an on-site presence.  She noted that National Planning Guidance confirmed that in such instances there was an essential need to live on-site.  She noted that likewise, rural workers’ dwellings could be supported if there was confidence that the business was viable and if the dwelling was required for succession planning. 

H Wafer explained that the business had been established and profitable for a significant period of time, seeing a year-on-year increase in customers and turnover.  She noted, however, continued growth was only possible with an on-site presence.  She reiterated that the application before Committee sought to develop a single rural workers’ dwelling in the green belt.  She noted Members has heard from Officers that they do not consider there to be an essential need for a worker to live on-site, however, should Members determine there was in fact a need, then very special circumstances exist which would enable the Committee to support the development in the green belt.  H Wafer noted that the fundamental aim of green belt policy was to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, adding that in this instance she would consider that the site was previously developed land due to its association with the farm house and surrounding built form.  H Wafer explained that the NPPF advised that the development of new buildings in the green belt was inappropriate unless they met a number of exceptions, which includes the redevelopment of previously developed land.  She noted that whilst the application was in outline, it was considered that a dwelling could be provided on site which was subservient to the adjacent buildings, infilling a small area of garden land and as such could be considered compliant with Paragraph 154(g) of the NPPF.

H Wafer noted that it was acknowledged that one of the reasons for refusal, as sited by the Planning Officer, was the lack of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment, however, if Members wished to recommend approval the applicant would be more than willing to accept a suitably worded condition or provide the assessment prior to a Decision Notice being issued.

H Wafer noted that therefore she would ask Members to support the application, the business and its employees.  She concluded by adding that, if approved, the development would be invaluable and would ensure the business could be sustained and continue to thrive.

The Chair thanked H Wafer and asked Officers to address the points raised by the speakers.

The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings noted Officers had looked at the application and supporting statements provided and that the work of the new resident would largely be commercial in nature, in connections with the café and farm shop.  She added it was not clear that the resident would be hands-on with the agricultural side of the business, and while Officers had sought additional information in this regard, it had not been forthcoming, and therefore Officer had felt the application was not policy compliant.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of any exception based on the land was previously developed was not supported by Officers, with agricultural land not being considered as previously developed.  She added the application was not applied for on the basis of being garden land, however, if it had been it would still have impacted upon the openness of the green belt, as outlined within the Committee Report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer noted there was already another dwelling on the site, other than the farmhouse, previously approved under CDP Policy 12.  The Principal Planning Officer noted two dwellings on the site, prior to the recent businesses.  Councillor J Elmer asked for clarification, noting reference on the site visit to the recently built house.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that there was a farmhouse and a bungalow, both being longstanding developments.

Councillor D Oliver noted that the biggest impact of the application was on the countryside.  He added that as the application was only in outline, he felt that the design at any reserved matters stage could achieve a design that could be acceptable in terms of maintaining views.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that it was correct that the application was in outline, and design would be for any reserved matters stage, however, as the application was within the green belt there therefore needed to be very special circumstances demonstrated to allow such development.  She added that Officers did not consider that there were such very special circumstances, in addition to there also being felt there would be impact upon the openness of the green belt.

Councillor A Bell noted the second property referred to on the site was a bungalow and asked if that property had a condition to state that it was only for use by a rural worker.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the farmhouse was occupied by Mr and Mrs Haswell who ran the business with their granddaughter.  She noted the bungalow was occupied by Mr and Mrs Haswell’s daughter who was, as previously noted, ill.  She added she did not know whether there was such a condition on the bungalow, however, they did work within the overall business. 

Councillor A Bell noted the strict requirement to demonstrate a need to be on-site, recalling similar previous applications.  He asked whether a temporary accommodation could be explored as a ‘first step’.  He noted the business was very successful and help support our local economy and provided a good number of jobs.  He added that if the application only just fell short, he would hope to try and find a way to support the application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted applications for temporary dwellings in rural settings were often associated with a new business and were to provide an opportunity to see if the business could be successful.  She added that in this case, the business was established and there were two existing dwellings on-site and no information had been provided in terms of retirements or otherwise.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that in relation to any temporary accommodation, the village of West Rainton was a 10–15-minute drive, should there need for persons to be at an address nearby.  She reiterated that planning policy required demonstration that all options had been looked at, which was not felt to be the case in terms of this application.

Councillor D Oliver noted his view on planning decisions was a balance, and while he had not operated a farm himself, he would take on face value what the family had said in terms of the three generations living on-site.  He noted that as he understood, the older generation were frailer and therefore there was a pressure on the business and there would be an impact if the family were scattered.  He noted he was willing to accept the position stated by the family when balancing against any visual harm.  He reiterated he felt that a design at the reserved matters stage would be able to suitable, and therefore he would be open to a motion for approval, though he would listen further to comments from the Committee.

The Chair asked for clarification as regards who currently lived on-site, to his understanding the Applicants lived in the farmhouse, and while the granddaughter helped with the shop, it did not operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  In addition, he noted there had been sufficient time for the Applicant or their Agent to provide the information Officers referred to in terms of assessments and additional evidence to support the application.  He asked if the Coal Authority were not satisfied, and no assessment had been made could the application be approved.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the application site was in a development high risk area, and the Coal Mining Risk Assessment was a very important document.  She deferred to the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) as regards any potential approval of the application without the assessment having been completed.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted there was a fundamental concern in terms of a lack of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment and added that it may be very difficult to condition, given the magnitude of the issue.  He noted that if Members were minded to approve the application, he would suggest a deferral, in order to allow time for the Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be carried out, would be a preferable course.  He noted that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, then there would need to be reasons given why the benefits of the application outweighed the harm to the green belt by inappropriateness, harm to the openness of the green belt, harm as described by Policy 12 of the CDP, and to explain as regards the very special circumstances that would mean the application was acceptable.

Councillor S Deinali moved deferral of the application, to allow for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be conducted, and to allow for further information to be submitted in relation to the role of the granddaughter in respect of the business.  She added that she felt that if the Committee were to refuse the application now there would be potential that the business could not proceed, especially given the age of the applicants.  The Chair noted there may be some merit to a deferral, however, there had been an amount of time already in which those issues could have been addressed.

Councillor J Clark moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation, adding that she understood the emotive input from the Local Member and Applicants’ Agent, however, she could not support the application.

Councillor J Elmer noted he had attended the site visit, and he felt the decision was very tough in that each application for development in the green belt needed to be looked at carefully, so as not to make each subsequent application in the green belt easier and easier.  He noted that in this instance, the farmhouse over two storeys already impacted upon the openness of the green belt, however, he had doubt in terms of any very special circumstances as the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence, especially with two buildings already on the site.  He noted he would second the motion for refusal.

Councillor D Oliver understood the concerns raised by other Members, however, he felt there was potentially value in the application, therefore he would second the motion for deferral. 

He noted there were no objections from members of the public, and there was an economic case for the application that the family may wish to make, in addition to the requisite Coal Mining Risk Assessment.

The Chair noted there was a motion for refusal and a motion for deferral, he would therefore put the motion for deferral first, moved by Councillor S Deinali, seconded by Councillor D Oliver, and upon a vote being take the motion was LOST.  The Chair noted the motion for refusal was moved by Councillor J Clark and seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as per the reasons set out within the report.